based on annual temp data from the river rhine.."...Using statistical methods, the scientists calculated that there is a 99 percent chance that extremely cold Central European winters and low solar activity are inherently linked...": )rgds rawpaul

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37135330

Shhhh!?

Shits on Fire,yo.

SolFolks

We been battered a little over the last Days hey,Geo-magnetic-wise : )

Its been emotional.

The thing that hath been,is That which shall be;and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun. Ecclesiastes 9:1

.24 hr Summary...Solar activity was at very low levels. Region 1710 (S21E38) producedthe largest event of the period, a B8 flare, at 30/1024 UTC. Region1710 showed a slight growth trend in its trailer spot area while theother regions on the disk were either stable or decaying. Newlynumbered Region 1711 (S17E83) was classified as a simple Axx-typealpha region, but it may contain trailer spots that are still behind theeast limb. Two disappearing solar filaments (DSF) were noted on H-Alphaimagery this period. The first was a 7 degree filament eruptioncentered near S20E56, near Region 1710, observed from 29/2337 - 30/0002UTC. The second was a 5 degree filament eruption centered near S08W35,near Region 1706, observed from 30/0653 - 0758 UTC. Further LASCO andSTEREO imagery analysis is needed to determine if a coronal massejection (CME) is associated with these events.

.Forecast...Solar activity is expected to be at very low levels with an increasingchance for C-class flares for the next three days (30 Mar - 01 Apr) dueto the return of old Regions 1689 (S18, L=150) and 1698 (S19, L=119).

.Forecast...The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is expectedto increase to moderate to high levels for the next three days (30 Mar -01 Apr), in response to the enhanced solar wind environment caused by acoronal hole/high speed stream (CH/HSS). The greater than 10 MeV protonflux at geosynchronous orbit is expected to remain at normal backgroundlevels for the next three days (30 Mar - 01 Apr).

Solar Wind

.24 hr Summary...Solar wind parameters, measured at the ACE spacecraft, were indicativeof continued influence from a CH/HSS. Solar wind speed steadilyincreased from initial values near 450 km/s to end-of-period values near575 km/s. The interplanetary magnetic field Bt values ranged from 11 nTto 1 nT while the Bz component ranged from +6 nT to - 10 nT. The phiangle remained in a predominately negative (toward) sector.

.Forecast...Solar wind speed is expected to begin tapering off on day one (30 Mar)and steadily decrease to nominal values for days two and three (31 Mar -01 Apr).

.Forecast...The geomagnetic field is expected to remain under the influence of aCH/HSS through day one (30 Mar), experiencing quiet to active conditionswith a slight chance for G1 (Minor) geomagnetic sub-storming in thenight-sector. Conditions are expected to decrease to quiet to unsettledlevels for days two and three (31 Mar - 01 Apr) as the CH/HSS effects wane' [link to www.swpc.noaa.gov]

There,I can read it better now myself...I missed the three periods of Kp5 as I fell of the World just after posting the South-West achooooo.

Solen haven't updated for the 30th yet.

The thing that hath been,is That which shall be;and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun. Ecclesiastes 9:1

'Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)'

Comment -

' Bob Koss

Posted Mar 16, 2013 at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

The goal was to get something scary published before the AR5 deadline. It simply didn't matter if it is correct. Since it is not refuted prior to the deadline, it will be used.

'Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)'

Comment -

' Bob Koss

Posted Mar 16, 2013 at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

The goal was to get something scary published before the AR5 deadline. It simply didn't matter if it is correct. Since it is not refuted prior to the deadline, it will be used.

'Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)'

Comment -

' Bob Koss

Posted Mar 16, 2013 at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

The goal was to get something scary published before the AR5 deadline. It simply didn't matter if it is correct. Since it is not refuted prior to the deadline, it will be used.

Marcott et al archived an alkenone reconstruction. There are discrepancies between the above emulation and the archived reconstruction, a topic that I’ll return to on another occasion. (I’ve tried diligently to reconcile, but am thus far unable. Perhaps due to some misunderstanding on my part of Marcott methodology, some inconsistency between data as used and data as archived or something else.) However, I do not believe that this matters for the purposes of using my emulation methodology to illustrate the effect of Marcott-Shakun re-dating.

ALkenone Core Re-dating

The table below summarizes Marcott-Shakun redating for all alkenone cores with either published end-date or Marcott end-date being less than 50 BP (AD1900). I’ve also shown the closing temperature of each series (“close”) after the two Marcot re-centering steps (as I understand them)'

'The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates ( “pubend” less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcot et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century.

Re-populating the closing date are 5 cores with published coretops earlier than AD10, in some cases much earlier. The coretop of MD95-2043, for example, was published as 10th century, but was re-dated by Marcott over 1000 years later to “0 BP”. MD95-2011 and MD-2015 were redated by 510 and 690 years respectively. All five re-dated cores contributing to the AD1940 reconstruction had positive values.

In a follow-up post, I’ll examine the validity of Marcott-Shakun redating. If the relevant specialists had been aware of or consulted on the Marcott-Shakun redating, I’m sure that they would have contested it.

Jean S had observed that the Marcott thesis had already described a re-dating of the cores using CALIB 6.0.1 as follows:

All radiocarbon based ages were recalibrated with CALIB 6.0.1 using INTCAL09 and its protocol (Reimer, 2009) for the site-specific locations and materials. Marine reservoir ages were taken from the originally published manuscripts.

The SI to Marcott et al made an essentially identical statement (pdf, 8):

The majority of our age-control points are based on radiocarbon dates. In order to compare the records appropriately, we recalibrated all radiocarbon dates with Calib 6.0.1 using INTCAL09 and its protocol (1) for the site-specific locations and materials. Any reservoir ages used in the ocean datasets followed the original authors’ suggested values, and were held constant unless otherwise stated in the original publication.

However, the re-dating described above is SUBSEQUENT to the Marcott thesis. (I’ve confirmed this by examining plots of individual proxies on pages 200-201 of the thesis. End dates illustrated in the thesis correspond more or less to published end dates and do not reflect the wholesale redating of the Science article.

I was unable to locate any reference to the wholesale re-dating in the text of Marcott et al 2013. The closest thing to a mention is the following statement in the SI:

Core tops are assumed to be 1950 AD unless otherwise indicated in original publication.

However, something more than this is going on. In some cases, Marcott et al have re-dated core tops indicated as 0 BP in the original publication. (Perhaps with justification, but this is not reported.) In other cases, core tops have been assigned to 0 BP even though different dates have been reported in the original publication. In another important case (of YAD061 significance as I will later discuss), Marcott et al ignored a major dating caveat of the original publication.

Examination of the re-dating of individual cores will give an interesting perspective on the cores themselves – an issue that, in my opinion, ought to have been addressed in technical terms by the authors. More on this in a forthcoming post.

The moral of today’s post for ocean cores. Are you an ocean core that is tired of your current date? Does your current date make you feel too old? Or does it make you feel too young? Try the Marcott-Shakun dating service. Ashley Madison for ocean cores. Confidentiality is guaranteed' [link to climateaudit.org]

Not too bad thank you Isis..a little stressed at all the lying from asshats like Dr.Keith Strong per CO2,but apart from that blown gasket,ok.

You?!

Quoting: Spittin'Cesium

LOL, you're too funny. I'm good, was out at a nature preserve all day in the sun, under non-contaminated skies watching birds and getting recalibrated by nature. I kept feeling like that idea of spaceship earth and how I was flying through the cosmos!!!! Very exhilarating and I'm still on a natural high. Thinking about getting some spring skiing in tomorrow in the Catskills. For me, we are right on track, all is as it should be, I'm not attached to too many outcomes that I'm aware of anyway.

Spread the word, change the collective conscious......THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH OF EVERYTHING TO GO AROUND

When you are undisciplined, the universe is extremely forgiving and when you are disciplined, the universe is extremely generous. Me

One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight, for a very long time, of the shore. Andre Gide

Not too bad thank you Isis..a little stressed at all the lying from asshats like Dr.Keith Strong per CO2,but apart from that blown gasket,ok.

You?!

Quoting: Spittin'Cesium

CO2? Cesium, you may like this article then- 20 Year Pause In Rising Temps!-

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.

Not too bad thank you Isis..a little stressed at all the lying from asshats like Dr.Keith Strong per CO2,but apart from that blown gasket,ok.

You?!

Quoting: Spittin'Cesium

LOL, you're too funny. I'm good, was out at a nature preserve all day in the sun, under non-contaminated skies watching birds and getting recalibrated by nature. I kept feeling like that idea of spaceship earth and how I was flying through the cosmos!!!! Very exhilarating and I'm still on a natural high. Thinking about getting some spring skiing in tomorrow in the Catskills. For me, we are right on track, all is as it should be, I'm not attached to too many outcomes that I'm aware of anyway.

Quoting: Isis One

Sounds more than awesome Isis!

We are doing just as you said...I used to lie on my back with my feet in the air(against a wall)staring at the sky as we flew around - At 40° - 1279.1 km/hr (794.8 mph).

Luvs it.

Scuse' the following,I feel it is time -

The thing that hath been,is That which shall be;and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun. Ecclesiastes 9:1

Not too bad thank you Isis..a little stressed at all the lying from asshats like Dr.Keith Strong per CO2,but apart from that blown gasket,ok.

You?!

Quoting: Spittin'Cesium

CO2? Cesium, you may like this article then- 20 Year Pause In Rising Temps!-

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.

Did you see the data I linked that proved the Core Samples dates that were used for the CO2 'Hockey Stick' were completely fudged and - 'Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)' !? [link to climateaudit.org]